← All Phrases

“revised return”

Assessment ProceduresSection 139(5)Section 139(5)10,551 judgments

The decision most relied on for revised return is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revised return

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court
349
citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court
179
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT
298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court
76
citing judgments

Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing an assessment order after accepting a revised return, the Commissioner acts within their power under section 263 to direct a fresh assessment.

Judgments citing revised return

Saravjit Bhatia, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 68

issued on 26.07.2016 which was duly served on the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 08.08.2016. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 15.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.5,90,400/-. The details of income declared in the revised return are as under :- Income from salary : Rs.5 ... Profession :(-) Rs.14,73,068/- Loss on speculation business : Rs.58,329/- 3. The assessee also filed audited balancesheet and profit and loss account alongwith revised return of income and has shown sale of shares amounting to Rs.33,73,395/- and share purchase amounting to Rs.57,20,755/- and has shown loss

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

reason adduced by the assessing officer is that the appellant filed only a revised statement in the course of original assessment proceedings and no revised return was filed is not an issue in the re assessment proceedings. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment made ... gains to the extent of 35,72,678 had become final in the original assessment and filing only a detailed statement and not a revised return happened in the course of original assessment proceedings and these are not relevant issues before the assessing officer in the re assessment proceedings

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

reason adduced by the assessing officer is that the appellant filed only a revised statement in the course of original assessment proceedings and no revised return was filed is not an issue in the re assessment proceedings. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment made ... gains to the extent of 35,72,678 had become final in the original assessment and filing only a detailed statement and not a revised return happened in the course of original assessment proceedings and these are not relevant issues before the assessing officer in the re assessment proceedings

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

reason adduced by the assessing officer is that the appellant filed only a revised statement in the course of original assessment proceedings and no revised return was filed is not an issue in the re assessment proceedings. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment made ... gains to the extent of 35,72,678 had become final in the original assessment and filing only a detailed statement and not a revised return happened in the course of original assessment proceedings and these are not relevant issues before the assessing officer in the re assessment proceedings

Bharat Shyamsunder Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2238/M/2019 is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 2239/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 271BSection 44A

return was revised on 28.02.2016 declaring income of Rs.10,52,940/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that in the revised return the assessee has disclosed income on presumptive basis under section 44AE of the Act at Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly asked the assessee to submit ... 271B of the Act. The AO noted that the return of income was filed under Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thereafter the assessee filed the revised return only when the case was selected for scrutiny and trying to take shelter under section 44AE which was also not applicable to the assessee

Bharat Shyamsunder Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2238/M/2019 is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 2238/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 271BSection 44A

return was revised on 28.02.2016 declaring income of Rs.10,52,940/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that in the revised return the assessee has disclosed income on presumptive basis under section 44AE of the Act at Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly asked the assessee to submit ... 271B of the Act. The AO noted that the return of income was filed under Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thereafter the assessee filed the revised return only when the case was selected for scrutiny and trying to take shelter under section 44AE which was also not applicable to the assessee

Burckhardt Compression India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 221/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Burckhardt Compression India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.304, Village: Kondhapuri, Pune – Nagar Road, Tal: Shirur, Pune-412209. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcb2058D …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avchat Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Drp/Tpo/Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making Addition Of “1. Rs.2,08,64,219/- On Account Of Adjustment Made To International Transaction Of Payment Of Management Services & The Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel Erred In Directing The Disallowance. The Assessee Company Has Made Payment To Its Associated 2. Enterprise Of Rs.2,08,64,219/- Towards Manufacturing Service Fees & There Is Error Of Considering In Assessment An Arm’S Length Price Of This Expenditure As ‘Nil’. 3. The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel, Dated 23.12.2015 Of The Ao In Case Of The Assessee Is Bad In Law. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Ms. Amrita Mishra
Section 143(3)

Subsequently, the assessee revised the return disclosing total income of Rs.14,49,37,980/- only due to claim of amortization of goodwill in the revised return of income. Management Fee - International Transactions: The assessee 4. reported the international transactions with AEs worth of Rs.20,16,68,928/-. Acting ... length price.” 11. Giving effect to the same, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 23.03.2015. Acting on the said revised return of income in the said draft assessment order, Assessing Officer quantified the total income at Rs.16,58,02,200/- after adding the TP adjustment of Rs.2

Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2146/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Aman BarasiaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

Book profit of Rs.114,72,88,000 was admitted under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income admitting total income of Rs.67,31,11,740 under the normal provisions of the Act after claiming deduction under chapter VIA and book profit

Vatika Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1512/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271Section 40a

issued on 18/2/2009. The due date of the filing of the return was 30/9/2008. Subsequently on 20/8/2009 the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring an income of INR 7 68244979/– against the original return of INR 9 05178215/–. Thus the assessee reduced its return of income or originally ... considering the original return of income at INR 9 05178215/– determining the total income at INR 1 199139848/–. Ld AO did not consider the revised return as original return of income was a belated return. Subsequently by passing an order u/s 154 of the income tax act the income

At & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6322/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiat& T Communication Services Vs. Dcit, India Pvt Ltd, Circle-2(1), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan: Aacca8033E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153(1)Section 40

granting credit for TDS of Rs 3,55,05,064 instead of Rs 4,19,02,254 claimed by the Appellant in its revised return of income for the subject AY. 8. Ground No. 8 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 8.1 On the facts and circumstances

M/S Manish Finlease (P) Ltd, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Patna

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

income, annual report, tax audit report, etc but the assessee did not claim certain expenses relating to rent, depreciation, etc. So it filed revised return with a claim of rent and depreciation to be allowed under sections 30 and 32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions ... Though the assessment was reopened on the alleged ground of various disallowable claims, but except for the disallowance of a sum claimed in the revised return neither any claim was disallowed nor any addition was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the assessee

B. Janardhan Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1465/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Memebr Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Poduchuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271ASection 69A

financial year under consideration. The assessee furnished the return of income on 05.03.2012 disclosing total income of Rs.1.01 crores. Subsequently, he filed the revised return on 14.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.1.25 crores. The assessment in the case was completed on 28.03.2013 and the order levying penalty under section 271AAA

Gartner Ireland Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6950/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodita No.6950/Mum/2017 & Ita No. 167/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Gartner Ireland Limited Dputy Commissioner C/O B.S.R & Co., Llp Of Income Tax -2(3)(2), Lodha Exellus, 1St Floor, 17 Floor, Air India Building Vs Apollo Mills Compound; Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 011 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan – Aaccg2919B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Somaiya, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2015. A draft assessment order was passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1), dated 25.02.2016. However, as the assessee submitted

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 190/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhidbi Capital Markets & Dcit Range-4(1)(1) Securities Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mafatlal Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaaci1268F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Sh. H.N. Singh (Cit-Dr) Shri Manish Singh (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Sh. H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 254(1)

only factually wrong. The learned AR submits that in the original return, the assessee had claimed TDS of Rs. 3.03 crore but, in revised return filed by the assessee on 5th November 2013, TDS claimed by assessee is Rs. 6.53 crore. Therefore, the learned AR of the assessee submits that ... Assessing Officer erred in not considering the revised return which was filed within prescribed period provided under the Act. The ld. AR submits that the addition of Rs. 16.09 crore made by Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue

Nozaki Finance & Investment P. Ltd ( Now Merged With Maestro Ventures P.Ltd ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6166/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)

return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring loss of `4,40,52,562/- which was revised on 06.07.2006 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, again a revised return was filed on 13.10.2006 declaring total income of `92,14,925/-. The assessment of the assessee was finalised u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing ... same, inadvertently assessee claimed higher TDS amount to the extent of `4,51,154/- and withdrew the higher claim. Further, in the second revised return filed by the assessee, assessee disallowed the proportionate interest expenditure claimed by it pertaining to these loans. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting all the arguments

M/S. Nozaki Finance & Investment Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2136/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)

return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring loss of `4,40,52,562/- which was revised on 06.07.2006 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, again a revised return was filed on 13.10.2006 declaring total income of `92,14,925/-. The assessment of the assessee was finalised u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing ... same, inadvertently assessee claimed higher TDS amount to the extent of `4,51,154/- and withdrew the higher claim. Further, in the second revised return filed by the assessee, assessee disallowed the proportionate interest expenditure claimed by it pertaining to these loans. However, the Assessing Officer rejecting all the arguments

M/S Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd., (Btipl), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Dcit, Ltd., (Btipl), Circle-5(1), Hotel Holiday Inn, Business Centre, Room No. 390, Aero City, Vs C.R. Building, Delhi Intl. Airport, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110037 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca5584C) Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate Department By: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, C.I.T. DR
Section 115JSection 92C

hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and loss of Rs. 506,682,596/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income wherein it had declared a loss of Rs. 751,768,805/- under the normal provisions of the Act and loss

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Airport Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5196/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 115J

September, 2011 declaring total income of Rs.15,85,86,08,799/- and deemed total income u/s 115JB of Rs.13,93,53,11,611/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 16th March, 2013 declaring total income at Rs.16,92,04,65,647/- and deemed total income of Rs.13 ... submitted that the Central Government has withdrawn interest on capital in view of which income of Rs.106.18 crore has been offered in its revised return of income. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 22nd March, 2013, for assessment year 2010-11 has made an addition

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2550/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153B(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 153C

which survey was conducted. In response, assessee has stated that he has already filed his return of income on 16.10.2012. Thereafter, assessee has filed revised return on 29.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.4,62,24,040/-. In pursuance to such revised return notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued

Shri Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutariya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-8, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Devi Agarwal (ITAT-Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430 5.2 Also Where the omission is deliberate, he cannot get rid of merely by filing a revised return. The revised return being filed only after the Department got information which was confronted to the assessee, penalty is attracted. Similar view has been